Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©New Sunday Times (Used by permission)
by Tan Choe Choe and Elizabeth John

• Race discrimination laws worldwide
• Every one of us should know his limits, says Shafie Apdal
• Race Relations: Pilot study to monitor status
• Tan: Law on race relations not necessary

Datuk Professor Dr Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, founding director of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's Institute of Ethnic Studies, tells Tan Choe Choe and Elizabeth John that the proposed Race Relations Act is merely a knee-jerk reaction to something bad that someone said. He says public consultation should be carried out to see if there really is a need to legislate race relations

Q: What do you think of the proposed Race Relations Act?

A: We don't need it because I think it came out of a situation where there is a form of vilification in a statement made about the Chinese.

I think we have to be very clear what we want to do. Do we want to stop people saying bad things? Or do we want to address discriminatory practices?

By definition, a Race Relations Act is an anti-discriminatory act. I've read the British, Australian and Canadian acts. From these, I can summarise that the intention of a Race Relations Act is to ensure that people are not discriminated against when it comes to things like access to jobs and education.

So why do I say our proposed act is not suitable? It's because we already have a lot of acts and laws in this country and the Constitution which addresses this issue, like the Sedition Act. You beef up this act if you need to.

If you really need an act, it's not a Race Relations Act, which is an anti-discrimination act. What we need is an act to stop people from badmouthing each other. So then it should be a Racial Vilification Act.

Q: What would the impact be if they have a Race Relations Act that is really about punishing people for saying bad things?

A: I'm not worried about that. I'm more concerned about it being an anti-discriminatory act because it will go against (certain articles of the) Constitution.

What with all the things that have been said about the New Economic Policy and so on, they haven't thought carefully about this act and its implications. Of course there's this concern that law by definition is about punishment; that it is punitive. That is another aspect that we have to look at.

The implications are not clear. Because we don't know. You have to interpret whether what that guy said was really inciting or not.

The moment you open that gate, then many things will come out; are you arresting the right person, how many witnesses do you have to have.

This is going to be complicated. If the Malay said something and only the Chinese heard it, is that good enough? Or how about four Chinese listening to one Malay? I'm already visualising all the possible problems.

Q: Even if it's specifically a Race Vilification Act?

A: It's going to suffer the same problem. You're going to have to prove that that guy is saying something bad about the other guy. You have to bring it to court and the law of evidence will have to come into place.

It'll be about technical mistakes, trial within trials and all these things that we see in a court that sees delays of 10 years.

Q: So what would be the better way to handle race vilification issues?

A: I want to consult the people first. This is not DNA. This is not about parking. This is about us. There is no bigger issue in this country than ethnic relations.

(But) the way you treat this law, it's like imposing a no parking law near the Petronas Towers. You cannot do that. It's total disrespect of the people.

Q: You feel they're rushing into things?

A: More than rushing. Melatah lah (spontaneous exaggerated reaction to the simplest of provocations).

It's kind of like a demonstration of immaturity in understanding our ethnic relations problem.

Q: When you talk about consulting the people, what exactly are you proposing?

A: Referendum, White Paper. This is about a new law. It's only fair for the government to have a white paper on what is the state of ethnic relations in Malaysia; to show we have problems with this, this and this and so we feel we have to do these things. A White Paper is the first answer to this.

Q: A White Paper on what exactly?

A: On the state of ethnic relations in Malaysia. Is it that dangerous, that critical, that problematic?

You can't just have a law about something you don't know about just because someone from Bukit Bendera said something bad.

You can't have a law every time someone says something. I feel very upset because this is totally old style.

Q: You see the proposal as a knee-jerk reaction?

A: Exactly. I feel very upset as a citizen. Why? We have to be consulted, please. Don't wait for another four years.

Malaysia was set up after a referendum. So we follow that good democratic practice. It won't cost much.

Q: You mentioned at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies conference in May that race relations is at a state of stable tension. What did you mean by that?

A: I'm saying that there will be times this tension will reach its height and sort of shake us up but it won't uproot everything.

Q: So that means things are not so bad that we need an act.

A: Exactly! Fifty years and suddenly we need this? Embarrassing, man! The rest of the world is looking at us. We're doing so well, and suddenly we need policemen to do this?

Q: So it isn't a sign of failure that we need it after 51 years?

A: No. It's not a sign of failure. It's a sign of the politicians' failure to understand the state of affairs in this country.

Q: What is it that they're not seeing?

A: People talk about unity and integration (but) they don't even know the difference between the two.

Unity means sharing of values. Integration, the keyword to that is segregation; it's physical. Apartheid is about physical segregation.

But our ministers cannot differentiate between the two.

Q: They use it interchangeably.

A: These two key words have been misunderstood.

What we want to do with the NEP and other policies is to try to create that unity and break down the segregation. We may or may not be failing. I don't know. But that's what it means.

Q: What does their inability to identify the problem imply? Is it a case of them not addressing the specific problems around the issue?

A: Yes, it's pretty obvious. I tell my son or daughter that when they have pimples, they can apply Elastoplast (sticking plaster) on them. But if they don't stop eating eggs, the problem will come back. Is it a dermatological problem or a nutritional problem?

That's why we're going to have a roundtable discussion on Oct 23 or Oct 30 at UKM, organised by our institute to discuss this act. It's an academic discussion that's open to the public. We will summarise it (the discussion) and send it to the cabinet.

Q: So what is the issue that they are not seeing that should be addressed?

A: When you talk about unity or integration, there are four different processes that we need to look at.

Number one is assimilation. We have Jawi peranakan, Cina peranakan -- that is assimilation. That is one form of perpaduan, one form of integration.

Two is accommodation. We have Deepa-Raya, Kongsi-Raya. It's "I respect you and you respect me" and we share things together.

The third one is acculturation, which means I borrow your culture and you borrow mine. Food and clothing are classic forms of cultural borrowings.

The final one is called amalgamation -- you go to potong kereta, you put different parts together and make a nice car. That's what we do with the Vision School concept.

We haven't gone to that level when we analyse perpaduan.

If we talk about conversion, then we are talking about assimilation problems. Unity is there, but in the process of assimilation, it becomes a problem.

So you reduce the problem to one particular corner of unity, not unity as a whole.

The problem is we go into a dark room -- unity -- and we don't know what's inside. And when there's one little bite, we go, "Ah, unity is affected!" This is what happens.

I always say proudly that we are experiencing unity, but at different intensities and forms. We are like a Rubik's cube; we never get the colour right. Sometimes we cheat and we paint all of them the same colour, but we're still there.

So if a Muslim wants to marry a non-Muslim, what is the problem? We can identify that problem and categorise it as relating to assimilation.

With the Orang Asli, we shouldn't practise assimilation, but that doesn't discount accommodation or acculturation.

I think the moment we use the word unity without the content, then we are lost.

Q: But many did get a little worried when this whole thing happened....

A: Yes. But when you're sick, what do you do first? You go and get a diagnosis first. Why don't we do that? We are immediately prescribed medication.

Q: Do you think this is the result of the politicians scrambling to be seen to be doing something in the wake of the Datuk Ahmad Ismail issue?

A: I think so, yes. This is the knee-jerk reaction I was talking about. That's why it upsets me because it's such an important issue.

The advisory board of race relations should be consulted.

Q: The National Unity Advisory Council?

A: Whatever it is, this council should protest that they have to be consulted first because inside that council are representatives from Sabah, Sara-wak; from every community.

Get their advice. Whether you heed it or not is another matter. you have not even done that.

The National Unity Department doesn't know what to do because they're just government officers. You can't really expect government officers to do anything because they can be transferred anywhere, any-time.

Q: You think the department is not doing its work seriously?

A: They are but the people keep changing over the years.

If they have an in-house sociologist or anthropologist or something, then it makes more sense. But what do they have? They have government officers, one in charge of operations, the other in charge of planning. And what is the operations? Rukun Tetangga.

They think RT is the best way to deal with race relations. But it's basically to curb theft. Of course you get together to make sure you catch the thief, and it so happens that you're from different ethnic groups. But what if it's a Malay area?

Q: A little too much emphasis on RT?

A: We are spending so much money on something so minor, which may not bring us results that commensurate with the money that has been spent.

Q: Many people are calling in to TV shows and writing that this is all a fight among the politicians. Is that really the case?

A: The leaders of this government are very concerned about ethnic relations as a result of a particular event.

They are under pressure because there were so many debates and arguments from everyone.

The proposals for the act were actually made around that debate.

The public didn't respond because they didn't think it's a problem with ethnic relations. The problem is this man, sort this man out.

As the Malays would say, you're burning your whole kelambu (net) just because of one noisy mosquito.

Q: We were at a live TV programme with Unity, Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal where he was asked this interesting question by a Universiti Putra Malaysia undergraduate. He asked: "Shouldn't Malays have more rights because they have been in the country longer?".

A: That is another issue altogether. This is what I call stable tensions. When we have five different school systems, what do you expect?

This is an issue of accommodation, if I were to put it in the frame of my 4As. For me, this question should be located there and answered in those terms.

When someone asked me about conversion, we're dealing with a few people, who decided out of love they want to get married and then fell out of love. Is this a public issue or a personal issue?

That's how we deal with it; then people will be more comforted. But when you don't have this, then it becomes a problem.

They say "Perpaduan got problem, perpaduan tergugat". There's no problem with perpaduan, you have a problem.

Q: So the student asking this question isn't an indication of a wider problem?

A: No, it's an indication of a situation of stable tension. Everyone is having a different viewpoint about this country because we are socialised in different ways.

We're looking at people growing up differently. And I must say that racism is not only with the Malays, it's (also) with the Chinese.

Ironically, just because the Malays don't know Chinese, so we don't know what's going on; the first impact is not there.

In a way, the vernacular system has also saved this country because we don't speak to each other very well. So in that way, we tend to keep our peace.

Q: On this stable tension, if we don't need this act to address it, then do we need to do anything at all?

A: No. I'm saying that we live with contradictions in this country. We have different schools, different mediums of instruction. Already in writing, we have differences that invite differences of opinions about many things. For me, that is inevitable. That is the system that, like it or not, we have come to accept in this country.

And because we're able to understand this, we have opted for tongue-wagging and not parang-waving.

Violence is not an option because we see live telecasts about ethnic conflict all over the world every day. In the US, Katrina has also showed us their ethnic problems.

So our people are educated visually about this. I believe this has produced a sort of mitigation for what this Ahmad said. I didn't see anyone jumping up and down. I didn't see Malay groups supporting him.

Q: In the same TV programme, a man called in and said the people are all right. It's the politicians who are making the situation worse. The term he used was orang politik samseng and that the rest of us don't want to fight.

A: It's true because politicians in this country are grouped in clear ethnic parties. Even in multi-ethnic parties like PKR, it is Malay-dominated; DAP is Chinese dominated and so is Gerakan, despite all the equalities they speak about.

But every four years, we vote. We choose our people and we write the script for the next four years. So I don't like this idea that only politicians are to be blamed because we put them there.

Q: So how is the ethnic relations module coming along in the universities?

A: This is the second semester. The one consistent thing they tell me is that the students are asking questions that they most likely won't ask in public and that's interesting.

The classroom has provided space for the students to express themselves. For example, why do we have to have a national language when economically English is better -- these kind of questions.

It's very good that they ask these questions.

I'm very happy because these are timid Malaysians who will not say anything if they think it's not safe to do so.

Q: Are spaces like these lacking?

A: No, there are plenty of them... in kopitiam, in MacDonald's; public places where we conduct private discussions. But this classroom is an official place -- in the sense that it's part of a degree course following the rules and function of a university.

Q: Will there be organised evaluation of the course?

A: Yes. In fact we've already started the evaluation. UKM is doing it and I know Universiti Malaya is also doing it. I want to meet all the teachers. Their feedback is as important as that of the students'.

Race discrimination laws worldwide

FROM Sweden to Singapore, countries around the world have made hate speech and hate crimes an offence under the law.

These include insulting or inciting groups of people based on race, religion, disability or sexual orientation, and threatening or harming them for the same reasons.

Some of these countries have separate hate-related laws and race relations laws.

The latter is usually drawn up to tackle racial discrimination in public and work places and to promote better understanding among ethnic communities.

For example, Britain enacted its first race law in 1965, making racial discrimination unlawful in public places. The act forbade discrimination on the grounds of colour, ethnicity or national origins and covered both British residents and overseas visitors.

In 1968, the law was extended to cover discrimination in housing, employment or public services.

By 1976, it covered direct and indirect discrimination and established the Commission for Racial Equality to tackle racial discrimination and promote racial equality.

This role has been taken over by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into which the CRE and two other equality commissions were merged last October.

An amendment act in 2000 made it a duty for public authorities, such as police and local councils, to promote racial equality. It also became unlawful for them to discriminate on racial grounds.

Britain also has a Racial and Religious Hatred Act which came into effect last year. This law makes it a criminal offence to use threatening words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up hatred against any group of people because of their religious beliefs or their lack of religious beliefs.

According to its Home Office website, from 2006 to 2007, police reported 5,619 hate crimes in which someone was injured, 4,350 hate crimes without injury, and 28,485 cases of racially or religiously motivated harassment.

There were also 3,565 cases of criminal damage related to hate crimes and most hate criminals live in the same neighbourhood as their victims, said the website.

The website said the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 identified a number of new racially and religiously aggravated offences and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced tougher sentences for offences motivated by hatred of the victim's sexual orientation.

In Australia, anti-vilification laws exist at federal, state and territory levels which punish racist acts which can incite serious contempt or severe ridicule of people because of their race. Some laws cover religious vilification.

Singapore has a Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act which took effect in 1992 and established the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.

Under the act, the minister has powers to place a restraining order against any person, including members of religious groups that incite or instigate or cause feelings of enmity or hostility between different religious groups.

Among others the order can be issued to restrain the person from making an oral address, printing or publishing or holding office in an editorial board, for up to two years.

Every order made must be referred to the council within 30 days.

The council makes a recommendation to the president to confirm, cancel or vary the order. Orders and decisions of the president, minister and recommendations of the council made under the act are final and cannot be called into question by any court.

But the act has provisions for the review of the order.

Not all countries, like Iceland, have separate, specific or separate laws to tackle issues of racism or religious hatred.

Some countries address it under their penal code where anyone who ridicules, insults, threatens or assaults a person or a group of people on account of nationality, colour, race, religion or sexual inclination is liable to a fine or imprisonment.

In others, such acts are considered unlawful clauses under their human rights laws or even in their constitution.

Every one of us should know his limits, says Shafie Apdal

by Elizabeth John and Tan Choe Choe

Are race relations in the country so bad that we need special legislation to govern interaction between communities? Unity, Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal talks to Elizabeth John and Tan Choe Choe about why Malaysia might need a Race Relations Act

Q: What is the aim of having a Race Relations Act?

A: There's been a lot of debate about which act should be applied by the government when addressing the various issues out there.

Some say using Internal Security Act (ISA) isn't proper. We were asked whether a Race Relations Act could be introduced as it has been in other countries.

So we discussed it in the cabinet. I've discussed with my colleague (Home Minister) Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar. We're looking into the matter seriously.

That is why my ministry's legal adviser and an officer from the Home Ministry are discussing the details. How best we can formulate this act? Is it beneficial or not?

This is a specific act, whereas the ISA is very general and may not be able to deal with issues of religion and sensitivities of race.

You can't really pin it down under the Sedition Act or ISA.

Q: There seems to be the impression that it's a done deal?

A: I wonder where you got that from?

Q: A few days after MCA Youth chief Datuk Liow Tiong Lai mooted the idea, you said it was just a matter of deciding which ministry it would come under.

A: No. Actually it was brought up in cabinet and we said we should have this act.

A week before the statement was made, we discussed if it would be possible for us to look into it.

That's why my ministry and the Home Ministry are looking into this act.

We are discussing if there's a need for the act and what's the framework.

Even the director-generals are involved, getting some examples coming from other countries like the United Kingdom and Canada.

Q: Nothing has been finalised?

A: Nothing.

Q: So if it's found to be non-beneficial, we might not have this act at all?

A: Well, it depends.

Q: Depends on?

A: Depends on the findings.

If the response is positive, if the findings say that what they have in the UK is very much needed, then why not in Malaysia because we have more races here.

Of course, it won't be easy here. You have more than 60 different races and you have to look at all the sensitive issues.

We have to address that in the act. It's going to be a tedious job unless we generalise things, but a generalised law is very difficult to enforce.

Q: The big question now is why now, after 51 years of living together? We had problems before and managed to overcome it.

A: That's why, even during the programme just now, I said one of the best ways to have a better understanding is not through enacting a law.

(Shafie had just been interviewed on RTM1's Bersemuka dengan Media programme on Tuesday night).

You cannot force people to unite. That's not the best way to unite people because I don't think it will last long.

It's through the liking, the understanding of each other, through tolerance, that we can build better unity rather than through law and forcing people.

But in a Malaysian context it's quite difficult. Some people seem to be promoting sensitive issues and they're quite conservative too, so how do we address those issues?

Q: The fact that we are considering it after 51 years and after having survived all sorts of things, doesn't that mean previous policies have failed?

A: That is not the question. If we believe there is a need and we can't take unity for granted.

Incidents like 13 May, that's a ghost we should forget in our lives.

Whatever happened, it was a disaster. It should not happen in our lifetime and we don't want our children to have those fears. We want them to mix and mingle.

But how do we achieve that if they don't understand each other? If they don't know the boundaries?

How to have that understanding? Through the provision of law it will enable us to have a better understanding. So we have to weigh the pros and cons.

Q: Surely it says something when we've had a National Unity Department for so long and yet we have to consider something like this for people to understand their boundaries? What has the department been doing?

A: We don't live in a static environment. In those days, people weren't exposed to all sorts of media. Those were the days when you just accepted things.

Nowadays the younger generation is very exposed. We can't impose what we like on them. They are very critical and they can make comparisons between what happens in Malaysia with other countries. They will say: "Why can't we have it here? They have it there!"

It's evolving. It moulds their perceptions and can affect relations between the communities.

Britain is developed. The people speak English, they eat the same food but because of regional and other differences, even they need the act. If it is something good for the country, that will strengthen unity, then why not have an enabling law?

We are trying to establish better unity among our people. It's not to install a law to punish people. No. We are not punitive.

Q: Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye said the government needed to do some soul-searching. What is your comment?

A: They can have their views. Soul-searching in what sense? Possibly. There's been a lot said about the role of politicians, the media, too.

Q: Some are saying that it's the outbursts of politicians that have led to the current situation.

A: So don't write it.

Q: Even if the papers don't write about it, as you just said, there are other ways for people to get the news.

A: One of the ways to help is not to write it, but I agree with you. You can't stop people from saying it.

I believe we must be cautious in what we say because we know the thinking of various people out there is not what we expect.

It can lead to a lot of disasters like what happened with Datuk Ahmad Ismail (Bukit Bendera Umno division chief).

Q: The caller says ordinary folk don't want to fight with each other. He asked you to look at what the politicians were doing. Even the public is pointing this out.

A: Both callers raised the question and I agree. But not all politicians are bad. Do you think all politicians are bad?

So far, I haven't done that. I haven't incited anyone.

Q: Why does it seem like the government is in a bit of rush to see this act through? Will there be time for public feedback? Why not have a parliamentary select committee look at this law?

A: No. We are getting feedback from the public.

Q: Are you?

A: We are listening. We are not saying we have already concluded.

We haven't set any framework. We are still discussing this matter. We are looking into how it's done in Britain.

Q: Is there going to be any organised method of getting feedback? Is there someone the public can write to?

A: Definitely. There will be sessions where we will ask for views. Not all of course.

No law can be tabled in Parliament if you had to ask the whole population to respond. Selected groups, of course.

For politicians, their forum will be Parliament. We can't be asking MPs: "May I have your views before we formulate the law?"

They will have ample time to debate in Parliament.

They can always submit to my ministry or the Home Ministry.

Q: Is there a time frame for that?

A: No. They should be able to do so now.

Q: Say a reader of this paper wanted to write to you, could they?

A: Why not?

Q: But there won't be a parliamentary select committee set up for this?

A: I can't say. We haven't reached that stage. You're jumping ahead. People can write to us. We can listen to their views, but that does not mean they'll be accepted.

Q: When this act was proposed, Datuk Liow put it that this law would be a kinder version of the ISA. If we have this act, will the authorities still be allowed to use the ISA to detain people for making sensitive statements?

A: ISA is more general. This is more specific. It's different and it won't contradict. We'll also have to check it against the Sedition Act.

Q: Will the proposed act include provisions about religious hatred?

A: I can't say specifically now. I haven't seen the framework. They are collecting all the data now.

Q: How is the implementation of the National Action Plan for Unity and Integration coming along?

A: It's ongoing. Most of the other ministries are implementing their part too. The Youth and Sports Ministry, for instance, is encouraging students from all races to play basketball, a sport that has traditionally been monopolised by the Chinese.

I can see that you're smiling and shaking your head. Even through sport we regulate how people behave and participate.

Q: From the look of things, everything in the country seems to be drawn along racial lines, from political parties right down to schools and basketball. Is there any point in legislating race relations when the situation is like this?

A: When you touch on racial issues, it can lead to conflict. If one were to take action, can you take action against those who are playing that game?

You can't do that because there are no provisions under any act -- the Sedition Act, even ISA. If you use it, people will say it's an abuse of power.

Say during a game, someone shouted something racist and the media picks it up. It could be dangerous.

People can be moulded in their minds and perceptions and it leads to a very dangerous situation.

Q: How does it help make the situation less dangerous when you punish people?

A: The act isn't only punitive, it is preventive. If you look at it from the other perspective, it's a deterrent.

Q: If that's the case won't an act like this stifle frank discussion? People might to be afraid to raise their concerns thinking: "If I say this, is there a section under the law that I'll be arrested under?"

A: If you allow, say, Ahmad Ismail to talk like that, would you allow him?

And how can we take action in those situations? It's quite difficult, isn't it?

Q: But what Datuk Ahmad Ismail said, wasn't in a discussion.

A: But it could lead into that because people tend to get excited when they are giving a speech or presenting their views. Like the young man who questioned me just now.

Q: So you feel it won't stifle frank discussion?

A: No, I don't think so. If you believe that you want to air some views but you know your limits, why not?

Q: How do you envision this act will work? If an incident like the Datuk Ahmad Ismail episode happened again, how would the act help?

A: It's a bit too early to say. Rest assured, we want to have a very comprehensive law.

Q: Sarawak's Second Planning and Resource Management Minister Datuk Seri Awang Tengah Ali Hassan said the state didn't need this law?

A: I cited the example just now (during the programme) of Sabah. You know, you should take a picture of every school holiday in my house, Indian boys come and play games with my children.

Q: So what he's saying is true? Sarawak doesn't need the act?

A: No I'm not saying that. We must have some form of preventive measure in the future. We can't be caught, at the end of the day, saying: "My God, it's too late, we should have had it."

If we believe there is a need for that, why not have it? How sure is he that it won't happen in Sarawak?

Q: Recently we had teachers making some racially sensitive statements. What is the ministry doing about it?

A: If things happen, we monitor. Once every two weeks we make a report, we go to the ground, give talks and make sure the situation does not escalate. Whatever we do, we don't publicise it.

Q: A lot of emphasis is being placed on educating the young but it seems like it's the older generation -- the politicians and teachers -- that is giving you a hard time.

A: They were school children once, and the school children now, in 30 years to come, will be the adults that will cause the problems.

Q: But what do you do about the adults in the meantime?

A: Use the Race Relations Act.

Q: Are you going to have a whole generation of well-informed young people and an older generation that's not? A: No we are engaging them but on a different platform.

We give talks and seminars and organise programmes. The department is doing quite a good job.

I was surprised when I went for the events. We had a breaking of fast event in Selangor and hundreds from various communities came and I gave a talk and we explained issues to them.

Q: Aren't you concerned that some of the people making racially sensitive remarks are the ones who are supposed to be setting an example for the children? Won't that send out a confusing message?

A: Once we get a report from the department, I will raise it at the cabinet, the relevant ministers will take the necessary action. That's what normally happens.

For instance, during the Kampung Medan incident, our department played a pivotal role. Information was passed to the Internal Security Department and it was sorted out.

During the Kampung Medan incident, only the police and the department were there on the ground, from 10pm to 3am or 4am.

We met the people and gave advice, to keep the situation under control.

Race Relations: Pilot study to monitor status

KUALA LUMPUR: Want to know how much your wakil rakyat has done to improve race relations in his area?

Want to know whether the state has been fair in addressing poverty among the races?

UKM's Institute of Ethnic Studies is looking at developing an ethnic relations monitoring system that may give the answer to all that and more.

The institute's founding director, Datuk Professor Dr Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, said the project would do this by looking at the country's 222 parliamentary constituencies and analysing their state of ethnic relations.

It will use the quality of life index as the measuring tool.

"What is the unhappiness in this country if not about quality of life?

Whether it's petrol or roti canai, it's about quality of life and the first measurement of that is whether you're poor or not," said Shamsul.

There are 20 elements in the quality of life index, including housing, school and health infrastructures.

The initial part of the study will look at whether the basic infrastructure is in place.

"If they are, is the Malay area choked with them and are the Chinese not getting enough?

"Quality of life is about our social life, our level of material comfort.

"If you don't look after schools, clinics, electricity supply, of course they're going to be unhappy."

So what can these tell us?

"It can tell us what is the focus of the MP and the government of the day, whether at state or federal level, in actually distributing this quality of life."

At the moment, Shamsul doesn't see there's any way to tell.

"I can't tell whether the government has spent so much money on the Malays that they've neglected others in an area. Or have they spent too much on the Chinese who may be living in the richer areas?"

It is hoped the ethnic relations monitoring system will yield results where we would be able to tell a wakil rakyat whether he has or hasn't done enough to look after ethnic relations -- whether he has distributed his allocations fairly or didn't make any attempt at all.

"It's going to be a very transparent way of looking at things and it'll be made readily accessible to everyone," Shamsul said.

The study will also seek the perception of people by conducting interviews to gauge the sentiments on the ground.

Problematic areas can be identified and if there are people living in semi-servile situations, it will be uncovered.

He is looking at conducting surveys every six months.

"We can pay a research assistant RM1,500 a month in every area. Someone from that village or constituency, to report to you from the ground.

"We cannot and will never be able to produce a perfect measurement of an imperfect human being, but we can produce a monitoring system that can warn us on what is happening in the country."

At the moment, Shamsul is running a few pilot surveys to get an idea how it will work and the Economic Planning Unit has expressed interest.

He is also looking to get funding from the United Nations Development Programme. If the project is successful, Shamsul will look at taking it to the world.

"I'm thinking about the rest of the world and how can we do it for them. I'm not only thinking of Malaysia, probably Zimbabwe, probably Kenya. We may be the last country that needs this."

Tan: Law on race relations not necessary

KUALA LUMPUR: A race relations law is not necessary in Malaysia, Deputy Information Minister Datuk Tan Lian Hoe said yesterday.

She said there were many laws to deal with the matter, such as the Sedition Act, and another piece of legislation would be redundant.

Tan said the proposed law would also give the impression to the world that Malaysia was a racially-divided nation.

"We are actually a big group of family members irrespective of race and religion," she said after opening the Entrepreneurs Convention 2008.

Tan said it was disappointing that some politicians were playing the race card for their self-interest.

She said the people should see themselves as Malaysians and not as Malays, Chinese, Indians or other races.

"It's time for us to introduce ourselves as anak Malaysia," she added.

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed